We've got candles all over the place and match books as well (but high up since one of my young granddaughters lives here -- gotta be child proof).

I really think the electricity's going to go out.

It's not flickering right now but about thirty minutes ago it was doing it non-stop. We have gas heat so at least we won't freeze. (I also have a wood burning stove. I don't cook on it, it's really decoration except if the electricity goes out.)

The government's closed down tomorrow due to the weather (state and local government).

The radio's saying we've got 8 inches but it looks like more than that to me.

Danvers, which is about 25 miles to the south of us, the radio says, has 15 inches.

But really, do you think people with the news are measuring?

It is cold.

It is like two degrees, I'm not joking.

And the snow is still falling.

So who would be out measuring?

No one.

My granddaughter was thrilled. And I got raisins and Oreos and a carrot and a scarf and a hat and we went out and made a snow man. My husband even rounded up an old pipe (for blowing bubbles) and brought it out.

She was so happy and she wanted me to teach her how to make angels in the snow because her aunt told her at Christmas that her dad and all of us used to make angels in the snow when it snowed.

I showed her.

She made one and said, "Granny, it's too cold."

No duh.

So we went back in and drank hot chocolate.

And we were staring out the kitchen window and she decided she was ready for the snow to stop.

Then she got tired and wanted to sleep with Genevieve, my cat (that used to be my daughter's cat).

I said she could try.

And she did.

Genevieve stayed with her long enough for my granddaughter to fall to sleep.

That was it, though.

She has to move around too much -- all night long -- to stay in bed.

Anyway, hope everyone's safe. And if you're not getting snow, I'm happy to try to will it your way.

Thursday, January 2, 2014. Chaos and violence continue, the New York
Times played people for fools on Benghazi, today they rewrite history on
Iraq, 'media watchdog' Greg Mitchell idiotically reTweets the Times,
Nouri assaults Anbar, children are being killed, where did Iraq get
fighter jets, and so very much more.

Sunday, the New York Times published David Kirkpatrick's garbage on the Benghazi attack. I heard in November, from a White House friend, that the Times
was doing a major front page article on the attack to help improve
Susan Rice's image. The White House designated Rice a press leaker in
the first term and she remains that. She is one of those 'government
officials' who is given anonymity to leak flattering details about the
White House or to attack White House opponents.

The silly Bob Somerby applauded the article, he wasn't the only one to
do so. I avoided the article thinking it would need a mention or two in
the year-in-review. Then I read it when I started writing "2013: The Year of Exposure."

People who value journalism should not value this crap. Andrew
Rosenthal wrote an idiotic defense of the article and attack on its
critics. When the paper gets defensive, it's because they're caught
lying.

Not caught by the people, they never give a damn about that. But
Democrats and Republicans in Congress have pushed back. That's a bit of
a surprise if you consider this is a week when people take time off.

So now the paper gets defensive.

In the year-in-review, I focused on the YouTube nonsense. In paragraph
ten of the long, long article, Kirkpatrick claims that the video is
connected to the attack.

Alright then. Walk us through it.

I believe he's given at least 7,200 words.

Few people will get 1,000 words to back up their point.

But Kirkpatrick can't back up his point. The closest he comes is
telling you an Egyptian program broadcast a clip of the video then moves
to a Libyan man who supposedly backs up that the program is watched in
Libya -- apparently by those with satellite TV.

Here's the thing though. The Libyan man says they watch the Egyptian
program on TV Fridays before morning prayers. Okay well there are
problems with that claim but let's let it go forward. The article tells
us that the Egyptian program aired the clip in the September 8th
program. Since the attack was in September 2012, we're talking about
September 8, 2012.

Here are the two paragraphs we're talking about.Then, on Sept. 8, a popular Islamist preacher lit the fuse by
screening a clip of the video on the ultraconservative Egyptian
satellite channel El Nas. American diplomats in Cairo raised the alarm
in Washington about a growing backlash, including calls for a protest
outside their embassy.No one mentioned it to the American diplomats in Libya. But Islamists
in Benghazi were watching. Egyptian satellite networks like El Nas and
El Rahma were widely available in Benghazi. “It is Friday morning
viewing,” popular on the day of prayer, said one young Benghazi Islamist
who turned up at the compound during the attack, speaking on the
condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

I can't believe how gullible and complaint people are.

Did no one read this damn report?

It's too long, granted. But if you read it where was your brain?

September 8, 2012, one of the entries that went up here was "Nouri's criminal ways." What didn't go up? An Iraq snapshot. Why was that?

I don't do a snapshot on Saturdays.

The argument is the Egyptian program popularized the video and the
program is watched in Libya Friday mornings before prayers and that
Friday they watched the program, saw the clip, it incited rage. None of
that is proven or even backed up. But worst of all, if the clip was
broadcast September 8th, no one in Libya saw it on that Friday because
that was Friday, September 7, 2012.

Not only did the readers -- if anyone did read it -- fail to use their
critical thinking, but there was no fact check of this awful article.

This article -- in an earlier form -- was so bad that the paper didn't run it. In June, Kirkpatrick wrote a version of it.

You need to grow the hell up and grasp when you're being conned. An
article that didn't qualify to the paper as "all the news that's fit to
print" in June is printed at great length in December?

What changed?

The deal to rehabilitate Susan Rice's image.

You're being conned and you're being lied to and if that's okay with
you, then cheer the stupid article, but if you've got a brain in your
head, now's the time to use it.

The article's being pimped as proof of two things -- the YouTube video caused what happened and that al Qaeda was not involved.

Earlier today, Mike and I talked about the article for his "Benghazi." From that:

[Mike:] The other assertion is that al Qaeda was not involved.

C.I.: I don't believe the article proves who was involved but on al
Qaeda, Kirkpatrick plays stupid. I'm sorry, I'm doing the Iraq snapshot
every day but holidays and I see the way the western press covers
Iraq. I have repeatedly noted that "al Qaeda" did not carry out this or
that attack. Sometimes the press will allow "al Qaeda-linked." But I
have repeatedly noted that the press needs to be precise in their
reporting. Kirkpatrick attempts to pin the blame on a group -- I don't
think he succeeds which doesn't mean the group's innocent, it means he
didn't back up his claims -- but that group -- which is not al Qaeda --
has been reported in many outlets before -- including the New York Times
-- as al Qaeda or al Qaeda-linked. To be clear, I don't know which
group or groups carried out the attack. I don't claim to. But what I'm
saying is Kirkpatrick's insisting it's group Z and group Z has often
been said to be al Qaeda. It's not. Group Z is not. But that is true
of many groups the press falsely dubs al Qaeda. I've frequently written
about this at The Common Ills and repeatedly the press needs to be
precise when they speak of these groups. Kirkpatrick can argue he is
being precise to which I would reply I'm glad he's being precise and I
hope everyone at the paper will be from the publication of his article
forward.

Repeatedly here, I have called out various outlets that insist "al Qaeda
in Iraq" or just "al Qaeda." They use it as a catch-all. Sometimes,
with the same groups, if we've harped on it here enough, they'll go a
week or two of saying "al Qaeda-linked" or "al Qaeda-affiliated."

The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists
linked to al-Qa’ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that,
since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign
interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June
attack against the British Ambassador’s convoy. We cannot rule out the
individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also
contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.

Here's Karl again:

Like the final version used by Ambassador Rice on the Sunday shows, the
CIA’s first drafts said the attack appeared to have been “spontaneously
inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo” but the CIA
version went on to say, “That being said, we do know that Islamic
extremists with ties to al-Qa’ida participated in the attack.” The
draft went on to specifically name the al Qaeda-affiliated group named
Ansar al-Sharia.

Now I'm real sorry that Bob Somerby's an idiot. But for several years
now, we've argued here that this 'classification' is imprecise and needs
to stop.

But it hasn't stopped.

I don't see that the New York Times article proves anything about
who was behind the attack -- clearly the US government agrees with me
on that since there are still no arrests for the attack -- but it's
crazy for people to being splitting hairs over this. I'm fine -- I am
more than fine -- with a strict definition of al Qaeda. But until that
day comes, we've got what we've got.

Feel free to join me in demanding a strict definition. I'm unaware that
anyone has outside of the United Nations. I'm certainly Bob Somerby's
never bothered with the topic in all of his useless prattles.

Not only does that contradict U.S. intelligence authorities, including
sworn testimony before Congress, it also purposely downplays the danger
posed to all Americans from a wide variety of radical Islamic terror
groups that routinely communicate and coordinate with each other. Many
of these groups openly claim to be "affiliates" of Al Qaeda. Some of
them almost certainly were among the Al Qaeda affiliates who
participated in a rally in Benghazi in June of 2012, three months before
the consulate killings. But when it comes to Al Qaeda, the Times defines the term even more narrowly than White House spokesman Jay Carney's reference to "Core Al Qaeda".

You can't keep stretching it back and forth. Join me in demanding a
strict definition or accept things as they are now. If you're accepting
them as they are now, Kirkpatrick's 'reasoning' doesn't hold up -- nor
does it match other work product from the paper.

A lengthy front-page report in Sunday’s New York Times
provides additional confirmation that the attack on a US facility in
Benghazi, Libya in September 2012 was the outcome of the Obama
administration’s use of Islamic fundamentalist terrorists in its war
against the Libyan regime of Muammar Gaddafi.The Times article, based on dozens of interviews in
Benghazi, asserts that the attack that killed four Americans, including
US Ambassador Christopher Stevens, was carried out by Libyans who had
previously been allied with the US government in the 2011 war that
overthrew and murdered Gaddafi. Times correspondent David D.
Kirkpatrick writes that the attack was not organized by Al Qaeda or any
other group from outside Libya, but “by fighters who had benefited
directly from NATO’s extensive air power and logistics support during
the uprising against Colonel Qaddafi.”

Just the fact that the paper published this tired story in the dead week
tells you they knew it was nothing. Unless a natural disaster takes
place -- like the tsunami a few years back -- the paper's dead this time
of year. So the fact that they slip the article in this time of year
should have raised eyebrows automatically.

If they had any faith in it, they would have run it in June.

If you're praising the article, you're not reading critically. In fact,
if you're eyes moved over this article and you're praising it, I'm not
even sure we can call it reading, maybe "absorbing"?

Over 7,000 words and none of them back up the central claims. No direct
links are presented. Kirkpatrick's article is like an early Sonny and
Cher recording, it goes round and round but never hits the actual note.

If you were fooled by the Times again, take comfort that there's always a bigger fool.

Remember this:Unlike a lot of media and political writers I am not one to let bygones
be bygones, at least in a very few tragic or high stakes cases. For
example, the media failures in the run-up to the Iraq war, given the
consequences. This explains my reaction to the Columbia Journalism Review today announcing, after a widely-watched search, that it was hiring Liz Spayd of The Washington Post as its new editor.

Now, I suppose I should review her entire career, for context, though others are doing it and you can read about it in plenty of places. She has been managing editor of the Post for
years now and obviously supervised a good deal of important work (and
some not so terrific, of course). But I am moved to recall, and then
let go, one famous 2004 article, by Howard Kurtz, then media writer at
the Post, which I covered in my book on those media failures and Iraq, So Wrong for So Long.

So he was pissed about the press and Iraq and savaged a woman but today he's Tweeting the New York Times?

I'm sorry, I thought Greg wrote:

Unlike a lot of media and political writers I am not one to let
bygones be bygones, at least in a very few tragic or high stakes cases.
For example, the media failures in the run-up to the Iraq war, given
the consequences.

He did. He wrote that.

He's not going to let bygones be bygones, he insists, and he's appalled
still by "the media failurs in the run-up to the Iraq war" -- but not so
appalled and not so anti-bygones be bygones that he's not going to
reTweet the New York Times. (And it's bad article on top of that --
it's more revisionary crap from the Times that sold the illegal war, but
he's reTweeting it?)

QUESTION: Marie, moving over to Iraq, does State Department
have any comments on reports that al-Qaida has captured parts of Ramadi
and Falluja?

MS. HARF: Let me see what I have on that. So we continue to
follow closely events in Anbar. We’re working to help all leaders focus
on the threat to Iraq posed by al-Qaida. This is a common threat that we
are obviously very familiar with, and we are helping to support the
Iraqi Government in this common fight. We’ve been in constant – in close
communication with the Iraqi Government. Ambassador Beecroft on the
ground, Brett McGurk here from Washington have been engaging with
government officials at the highest levels across the ethnic and
sectarian spectrum in Iraq on this issue. We’ve encouraged the
government to work with the population to fight these terrorists to draw
on some of the lessons, quite frankly, we learned when we were there,
to isolate extremists which exist on both sides, and encourage moderates
on both sides. We obviously condemn in the strongest terms the
terrorist attacks we’ve seen. There’s no place for this kind of violence
in Iraq, and we are very committed to continuing to work with them to
fight this common enemy together.

QUESTION: Do you think the threat from al-Qaida is increasing in the Middle East?

MS. HARF: That’s a pretty broad question. I think there are in
some places, as I said I think to Matt’s question, either al-Qaida
affiliates or groups that may share some sort of extremist ideology with
al-Qaida, that in some places, particularly because of the civil war in
Syria, have taken advantage of the security situation to perpetrate
terrorist attacks. That’s certainly what we’ve seen in Iraq, we’ve seen
it in Lebanon. It’s something we’re concerned about. I think it’s not as
simple as saying al-Qaida. Each of these groups is a little bit
different, and that’s important because when you’re trying to figure out
how to combat them and fight them, it actually matters who they take
guidance from and who’s giving them orders and who’s planning these
attacks.

QUESTION: So do you blame Syria for the increase of violence in Iraq?MS. HARF: That’s certainly a huge part of it, absolutely.
We’ve seen the kind of terrorist violence we’ve seen in Syria, and
that’s certainly spilled over into Iraq. But we are very concerned about
it. That’s why we’re engaged consistently with the Iraqis to help fight
it together. But it is a problem we’re very concerned about,
absolutely.

QUESTION: Yep. Wait – anything else on the Middle East?

Marie Harf says, "It's not as simple as saying al Qaeda" and at least
Marie Harf and I agree on something. Maybe others can agree and we can
all get a little more mature?

It won't happen any time soon. Jim Michaels didn't get the memo. He opens his USA Today report tonight with this, "Al-Qaeda militants in key western Iraqi cities launched a series of
brazen attacks against police stations and fought battles with
government forces Thursday amid growing sectarian tensions between
Sunnis and Shiites." To stage this operation? Nouri has to pull troops from across Iraq.

Iraq Times reports that troops were pulled from Dhi Qar and, now in Iraq, they don't have sufficient food rations. More poor planning from Nouri.

“The tribesmen are now fighting the army. What is the
army doing in our city and why did they come?” Sheikh Adnan al-Mehana,
the head of one of the biggest tribes in Anbar, said by phone from
Ramadi.

“Today, we defeated the army and if another force will be sent, we are ready for them,” he said.

Grasp that?

Good.

For the second time this week, the BBC's Rafid Jaboori has provided lies
as news. I hope Nouri's f**king Rafid, because I hope Rafid's getting
something out of his whoring. Here he is today, offering 'analysis:'Al-Qaeda has moved into Anbar to exploit the dispute between the Sunnis
and the government. However, Mr Maliki has now secured backing from key
Sunni tribal leaders.

Maybe if you just follow the BBC you can pretend Rafid's offering analysis.

Iraqi Spring MC notes that
Anbar tribal leaders are pointing out that they did not ask for Nouri's
forces to be sent into the province and the tribal leaders maintain
they're more than able to provide security without Nouri's forces.

Nouri's forces are committing genocide. You can pretty as much you damn
well want and you kid yourself however you need to, but that's what's
happening and that the United States government is allowing to happen.
They have armed a despot.

There are multiple reports in Arabic social media that "fighter jets"
are being used. Iraq has no fighter jets. That's what Congress was
told in December, just weeks ago. So where did these fighter jets come
from?

Also, the White House might want to check with the propaganda channel
Voice of America -- it's also saying fighter jets are being used in
Anbar.

Rudaw also notes,
"The scholars also demanded that all Sunnis involved in the political
process withdraw from the so-called Document of Honor, because 'Maliki
has proved that he does not respect treaties or covenants'." Let's get
back to the resignations noted earlier in the snapshot. Al Mada reports
44 MPs with the Motahidon Alliance have submitted their resignations to
Speaker of Parliament Osama al-Nujaifi because of today's attacks on
the protesters in Anbar. All Iraq News notes
the spokesperson for the Motahidon Alliance held a press conference and
stated that the resignations are taking place and "that the war in
Anbar is unconstitutional and violate all patriotic terms." KUNA covers it here. Liu Dan (Xinhua) reports, "The MPs from the Sunni Motahidoon (United) Alliance also
demanded the withdrawal of the army from cities in the Anbar province
and the release of Ahmad al-Alwani, a Sunni lawmaker who was arrested on
Saturday, the bloc's spokesman Dhafer al-Ani said at a televised press
conference." Matt Bradley (Wall St. Journal) points out,
"Mr. Awlani was an early supporter of the year-old Sunni protest
movement against Mr. Maliki and his Shiite-dominated government."

QUESTION: Today, a number of parliamentarians have resigned
and the government continued to pound areas in Ramadi and Anbar and so
on, and at the same time, you have already sent in some drones and other
material to fight terrorism. Do you have any comments on that?MS. HARF: Well, we’re tracking the events in Anbar closely.
We’re concerned by the reports of soldiers and civilians who have been
killed in clashes. We, from the U.S. side, have been intensely engaged
from both Baghdad and Washington with Iraqi leaders on all sides. We’ve
been urging restraint, dialogue, and certainly for all sides to take
steps to de-escalate and not to further escalate the situation. We’ll
continue to gather facts on the ground and continue to engage with Iraqi
leaders as this moves forward.QUESTION: Yeah. Are you talking to the – to people, like, from
the Iraqiya and the dialogue like (inaudible) and so on who have just
withdrawn, including the speaker of the parliament and --MS. HARF: Well, I think we’re still gathering facts on that,
Said. I saw some of those reports before I came out. I think all the
facts aren’t entirely clear. Suffice to say, we’re talking to folks from
all different sides that are involved in this.QUESTION: Are you concerned that the government may collapse?MS. HARF: I think you’re getting 15 steps ahead of where we
are. What we’re calling on folks to do is to de-escalate the situation
on all sides.QUESTION: Don’t you think that the security forces has overreacted in dealing with the protestors in Anbar?MS. HARF: Again, we’re still looking at the situation to get
all the facts on the ground. I just don’t want to go further than that
before we know exactly what happened. We’ve called on all sides to show
restraint. That includes, certainly, the security forces and other folks
as well. So we’ll see what exactly happened and go from there.QUESTION: And on what level are you talking to the prime minister?

MS. HARF: I can double-check and see if there’s some specifics I can share about what level.

Let's note what's going on with imprisoned MP Ahmed al-Alwani -- illegally imprisoned. NINA reports:A parliamentary delegation headed to the Anti-terrorism center to meet MP Ahmed al-Alwani.MP,
of the Iraqiya coalition, Sumayya al-Qallab told the National Iraqi
News Agency / NINA /: "The delegation includes MP Khalid al-Alwani, MP
Hamid al-Zobaie and Sumayya al-Qallab."The Acting Defense
Minister, Saadoun al-Dulaimi and the head of the Iraqi Awakening
Conference, Ahmed Abu Risha met Alwani yesterday, emphasizing that he
enjoys good health, and he was allowed to contact with his family, and
he will be presented to the investigating judge on Thursday.

Why did that visit take place?

Before today's visit was being reported, Wednesday, in fact, Iraq Times was reporting
that Nouri had acknowledged that al-Alwani was not responsible for
shooting anyone or transferring weapons and would allow the visit to
take place.

How nice of him.

Per the Iraqi Constitution, al-Alwani cannot be arrested unless he's
arrested while he's committing a crime or the Parliament strips him of
his office. At his home at dawn, asleep, on Saturday, he was not in the
midst of any crime.

He has not been stripped of his immunity.

The arrest was illegal.

He was said to be -- yes, it's coming -- a 'terrorist.' And an assassin.

2013 in Iraq
began much the way 2012 did, with violence well down from the levels of
the US occupation era. Then the Maliki government attacked a peaceful
protest in Hawija in mid-April, and a sectarian powderkeg just exploded.

By summer the death tolls were again
rivaling the worst of the US surge-era, and 2013 ended with well over
10,000 dead, and 1,180 killed in the month of December alone. The toll
is the worst since 2007.

Baghdad, 1 January 2014 – According to casualty figures released
today by UNAMI, a total of 759 Iraqis were killed and another 1,345 were
wounded in acts of terrorism and violence in December*.

The number of civilians killed was 661 (including 175 civilian
police), while the number of civilians injured was 1201 (including 258
civilian police). A further 98 members of the Iraqi Security Forces were
killed and 144 were injured. The total number of civilian casualties (including police) in 2013
has been the highest since 2008, with 7,818 killed (6,787 in 2008) and
17,981 (20,178 in 2008) injured. “This is a sad and terrible record which confirms once again the
urgent need for the Iraqi authorities to address the roots of violence
to curb this infernal circle,” the Special Representative of the United
Nations Secretary-General for Iraq (SRSG), Mr. Nickolay Mladenov, said. The most violent month of 2013 was May, with a total of 3,154
civilian casualties (including police), of whom 963 were killed and
2,191 wounded. Since April 2013, the total number of civilian casualties
(killed and injured, including police) has been consistently above
1,500. “The level of indiscriminate violence in Iraq is unacceptable and I
call on the Iraqi leaders to take the necessary steps to prevent
terrorist groups to fuel the sectarian tensions, which contribute to
weaken the social fabric of the society,” Mr. Mladenov added. Baghdad was the worst affected Governorate with 809 civilian
casualties (254 killed, 555 injured), followed by Salahadin (102 killed
160 injured), Diyala (99 killed 161 injured), Ninewa (105 killed 147
injured), and Anbar (62 killed 79 injured).Kirkuk and Babil also reported casualties (double digit figures).

*Data do not take into account casualties of the current IA operation in Anbar, for which we do not have sufficient information.

Disclaimer: The United Nations Assistance
Mission for Iraq undertakes monitoring of the impact of armed violence
and terrorism on Iraqi civilians in accordance with its mandate. UNAMI
relies on direct investigation, along with credible secondary sources,
in determining civilian casualties. UNAMI figures are conservative and
may under-report the actual number of civilians killed and injured for a
variety of reasons. Where different casualty figures are obtained for
the same incident, the figure as verified by UNAMI is used.